Republicans want NBC, CNN to pull Clinton programs

The Republican National Committee charged yesterday that NBC and CNN are promoting a potential presidential candidacy by Hillary Rodham Clinton, threatening to blackball them from future GOP primary debates if they air upcoming programs on the former secretary of state.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called a planned NBC miniseries on Clinton and a CNN documentary on the first lady an “extended commercial” for a future Clinton presidential campaign. In separate letters to the networks, he urged them to cancel “this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production.”

Clinton has not yet said whether she will run for president again in 2016, but her future remains the subject of wide speculation in political circles and beyond. The primary debates typically provide a ratings boost for the networks and are highly-coveted as the presidential campaign unfolds.

In making the charge, the RNC was raising a common complaint among Republican activists that news and entertainment industries favor Democratic candidates. Republicans have also used a potential Clinton campaign as a fundraising tool in recent months as both parties begin to assess the crop of candidates to succeed President Obama.

CNN Films is planning a feature-length documentary film on the former first lady, looking at her professional and personal life. It will be led by Oscar-winning director and producer Charles Ferguson and is expected to air in 2014.

NBC has announced a miniseries called Hillary, starring actress Diane Lane. No air date has been announced but it is timed to be released before the 2016 presidential election. NBC has said the four-hour miniseries will follow Clinton’s life and career from 1998 to the present.

Richard Licata, an NBC Entertainment spokesman, declined comment on the request and referred calls to NBC News, which said in a statement that it “is completely independent of NBC Entertainment and has no involvement in this project.”

CNN said in a statement that “instead of making premature decisions about a project that is in the very early stages of development and months from completion, we would encourage the members of the Republican National Committee to reserve judgment until they know more.”

“Should they decide not to participate in debates on CNN, we would find it curious, as limiting their debate participation seems to be the ultimate disservice to voters,” CNN said.

In the letters, Priebus said the RNC would refuse to partner with the two networks on future Republican primary debates or sanction any debates which CNN or NBC may sponsor if they continued with their Clinton programs. Unless the networks comply, he plans to push for the sanctions at an RNC meeting in Boston beginning Aug. 14.

GOP leaders in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina said they supported the request.

Since Mitt Romney’s loss to Obama in last year’s elections, Republicans have pushed to limit the number of primary debates. A large field of Republicans participated in about 20 debates in 2011 and 2012 and some party leaders argued that it hurt their ability to stay unified against Obama. An audit by the RNC released earlier this year called for about 10 to 12 primary debates during the 2016 campaign, with the first occurring no earlier than Sept. 1, 2015.

If NBC and CNN were excluded from sponsoring debates, it could help the RNC meet its recommendation.

The GOP request also shines a spotlight on the tricky nature of television news and how the entertainment wing of a network can cause headaches for its separate news division. CNN Films is a unit of CNN that was started last year to develop feature-length documentaries to be aired both on television and in movie theaters. CNN, part of Time Warner Inc., has said it also will air the Clinton documentary in theaters.

NBC Entertainment is separate from NBC News but both are part of NBCUniversal, which Comcast purchased from General Electric in 2011. In the letter, Priebus noted that executives and employees of Philadelphia-based Comcast have made large financial contributions to the campaigns of Obama and Clinton in the past.

It's interesting that the RNC is against NBC and CNN airing a Clinton miniseries but OK if FAUX News does.

RabbitNH wrote:

08/09/2013

You seem to throw around the word "hate" a lot Bruce. You can disagree with the President's policies and not hate him. Would it be fair to say you hated Bush because you disagreed with his policies?
We know what the memo said. We know what the original memo said and how it was edited 12 times. You do your usual, take one line , run with that and leave out the rest of the memo.
You need to get some unbiased links. MotherJones is a joke.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/09/2013

Feel free to post the sources of your own "unbiased" fount of information whenever you post.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/10/2013

You've still not directly addressed the issue, only made repeated disparaging claims about Rice, Clinton, and Obama regarding the "memo" and their using the video as an excuse for the real cause of the attack on the outpost. I've presented evidence showing that the video claim originated at the CIA, not the State Dept. or WH, and that it was part of a CIA cover-up of a larger CIA operation in the area. "Memos" get edited all the time; this one had to go back and forth between State and CIA because it was about a covert operation gone bad. It has since been acknowledged by all parties that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. But the video was part of the CIA explanation for what transpired. The Senate committee report that looked into the Benghazi attack back in December acknowledged the fact it was a terrorist attack, and that the State Dept. made numerous mistakes, and had violated some its own policies regarding security. Clinton took responsibility for what transpired there. What else would you have her and Rice do? This was likely a covert CIA operation gone bad, and Amb. Stevens was in the wrong spot at the wrong time. How much did he know about what the CIA was up to, which presumably involve Syrian rebels as much as Libyan ones? While State screwed up, CIA screwed up worse--they should have had more "assets" providing security. had they fully informed State of what they were up to? CIA is getting a pass, despite screwing up yet again, and Clinton and State are shouldering the blame "for the team". But some would rather continue to focus on HC, and also act as if this was first and only (or even the worst) instead of the most recent of a series of assaults on diplomatic and other U.S. outposts since 9/11. The obsession with Clinton obscures the larger issue of our actions post 9/11 and how we conduct the WoT. So remember to post links to your "unbiased" sources should you choose to post a response that spells out exactly what you "know the memo said".

GWTW wrote:

08/11/2013

So, what you are saying is, that a group of armed terrorists knew that the CIA was covertly dealing arms to the Syrians? How did they know? Why still, dont the American people know? Last I knew, the CIA reports to the DNI, who reports directly to the POTUS.

RabbitNH wrote:

08/08/2013

Clinton's Record:
Benghazi, she denies she knew anything about requests for more security and told the survivors at the funeral that the video was to blame.
Ended democracy in Honduras.
Reset with Russia failed, now they have Snowden.
Israel Relations not even attempted. Kerry already is starting peace talks.
Arab Spring.
Egypt & Syria
All the left can point to for her accomplishments is her promoting women.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/08/2013

We've been over Benghazi repeatedly here and in hearings. Things are desperate in right-wingnut land when the issue continues to be raised after having been vetted. Stevens was ultimately responsible for his own death; he was a courageous diplomat who knew he was taking a risk by visiting the consulate next to what was a CIA asset with diplomatic cover, likely engaged in secret counter-terrorism activities. If we're to hold more hearings on embassy security and the State Dept., then let's include more of the attacks committed since the "War on Terror" commenced:
June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.
February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Truck bomb kills 17.
February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.
July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan
Suicide bomber kills two.
December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.
March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan
Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.
September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.
January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece
A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.
July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey
Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.
March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.
September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen
Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

RabbitNH wrote:

08/08/2013

Nothing vetted here Bruce. If you want a scandal to go away, then the best way to accomplish that is to stop hiding evidence. That includes having the folks who were actually there available, as opposed to hiding them and giving them new names.
Watch any hearing. it is the same scenario. The Dems ask no questions.
Those who testify blame low level employees or like Holder get a pass from the President. Hillary did not see the memo. Evidence is not forth coming.
If you want any of these scandals to go away, then the way to do that is to stop putting roadblocks up in the process.
If you have nothing to hide, then it would seem that all this obstruction says just the opposite. Hiding and blaming others, is a sure sign you do have something to hide.

GWTW wrote:

08/08/2013

Which one of these was blamed on a Youtube Video??? Yep..only one.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/08/2013

If you and the rabbit and the rest of the Carp Per Diems weren't so blinded by Hillary hate and obsessed with finding fault with Obama at every turn, you'd know that the claim regarding the video seems to have originated with the CIA, whose role at Benghazi has never been clear, but likely involved dealing arms covertly to Syrian rebels. Benghazi was largely a CIA operation, and the State Dept has taken a bullet (no pun intended) for them on this one.
"After Petraeus’s morning coffee on Sept. 14, the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis sent an internal agency e-mail with the subject line: 'FLASH coordination — white paper for HPSCI,' referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The committee 'has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media,' the e-mail said.
Then, shifting into the first person, the office’s director, who had accompanied Petraeus to the coffee, wrote, 'I have been asked to provide a bit on responsibility,' including “warnings we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstration, as well as material on warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary.' Included was a six-point draft that began, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired' by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere 'and evolved' into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeuss-role-in-drafting-benghazi-talking-points-raises-questions/2013/05/21/db19f352-c165-11
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/benghazi-what-did-cia-know-and-when-did-it-know-it

ItsaRepublic wrote:

08/10/2013

To Bruce below......Mother Jones is a propaganda source, slanted and opinion......no credibility beyond agenda. Washington Post is also a left wing propaganda source.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/11/2013

To Itsa below: As usual, when you can't argue the facts, just disparage the source(s).

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/06/2013

I'm inclined to agree with the Republicans that a miniseries or documentary on Hilary would tend to boost her prospects come 2016, and such projects are probably best left until after that time. That said, the Republicans have no one even close to Clinton in terms of accomplishments and intellect. If they did, they might not be so quick to complain about media projects that look at her career. Maybe they could strike a deal, and run the 'infomercial' they created back in 2008(?) designed to 'swiftboat' her, as part of an equal time deal. The Comedy Channel might be interested.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

08/06/2013

Care to name one Clinton accomplishment?

jonstah wrote:

08/06/2013

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hillary-clinton-accomplishments.html

GWTW wrote:

08/07/2013

Congratulating a sports team is now considered a major accomplishment. Absurd.

And here are her some more. Eat your heart out, Ted Cruz. It's so much easier to tear down than to build.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_awards_and_honors

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

08/12/2013

so your answer is ...NO

jonstah wrote:

08/06/2013

Good points Bruce. I think the republicans will put Mrs. Ayotte up for vice-president but the question is who will they put up for Prez?

RabbitNH wrote:

08/06/2013

I do hope Clinton runs. She has a lot of baggage. I can see it now, all the bimbos coming out of the closet saying they were with Bill.
She is not a person to look up to in my book. Tolerates a cheating husband and lies for him, did nothing as Secretary but had photo ops all over the world, and pretty much lied about Benghazi. I did not see that memo come across my desk.
She and Bubba made a deal with President Obama. Bubba would change his previous opinions of Obama if the President would champion Hillary for a Presidential run. You see Bubba is having a hard time being retired. he wants to be President again. Hillary gets in and they can run the country together. A third term for him. And lots of interns to get friendly with.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

08/09/2013

Benghazi was a State Dept Arms smuggling scandal that will be the Watergate for Obama & Hillary.......the whistle blowers lawyer had their office burglarized and they only stole those files.....copies ...of course....this will be big

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/11/2013

All such charges and claims should be investigated by state and federal authorities, and the media. We'll see how things turn out.

GWTW wrote:

08/11/2013

LOL...of what country? Certainly not this one.

Jim... wrote:

08/06/2013

GW & Rabbit - I have to disagree. At the last debates Romney was declared the winner early as he was the most aggressive getting his answers out regardless of the commentator statements. Rarely do we see candidates following the rules to the "T", they say what they want for an answer many times not even answering the exact question. I agree most people can't read multiple papers, every paper and political group twist answers, make up outright lies, and that is why I think debates are better. Hard to edit when the debate is live. Each candidate answering the same question in front of each other. May not be perfect but at least all sides are being heard at the same time. If a candidate can’t get their view across then shame on them. My opinion, campaign groups should be setting down and working out a debate format (time, place, questions) that favors no one except the public. But neither side really wants that……..

RabbitNH wrote:

08/06/2013

I see many of the questions by the moderators Jim as okay for the most part. Although many questions in the last debates were useless. Focused more on what one of the candidates said that was controversial. Not a lot of info on important things. The moderator lost control and some moderators actually made it impossible by taking sides by injecting their opinion.
The moderator is often the key to set the tone.
We have to read so many newspapers to try and find some facts that are not biased. Not an easy task, and very time consuming, and most folks just do not have the time, or they vote on one issue.

RabbitNH wrote:

08/06/2013

Correct GWTW, Clinton and Obama boycotted a debate on Fox and that debate never happened.
There is also widespread opinion that too many debates caused folks to turn off watching them.
The moderator can screw up a debate pretty badly also.
Well, yeah, the two deals for Hillary by biased networks is nothing more than promoting her. It will be pretty evident that both of them will make her look good, excuse her mistakes, etc. Probably paint her as a scorned woman who had no clue her husband cheated on her.
Both of those stations cannot claim to be unbiased. Their contributions to the Dem Party pretty much tells you they are doing this to promote Hillary for her presidential run.

Jim... wrote:

08/06/2013

""Republicans have pushed to limit the number of primary debates"" - A normal person would feel the GOP would want MORE debates so the citizens would better understand where they stand on the issues and how they intend to solve problems. That is supposed to be the way one gets votes. Yet, the GOP fully admits by their statement what they really want is a "less informed" public. Actually seems they want the citizens to know less about any candidate, R or D.

RabbitNH wrote:

08/06/2013

Well Jim, the less informed public can put the blame on the media. They constantly lie, , and even go the extreme of auditing videos to keep the public uninformed.
They do not present facts, they are all biased. That is why those of us that want to be informed have to become fact checkers. Most folks do not have the time to read 4 newspapers, watch a bunch of news shows, etc to try and figure things out.
The media is making it very difficult to get any news, facts, or anything unbiased. So basically the media who has the most shows tells the public what to think.
You see it on this forum. Everybody is up in arms if the CM dares to print anything that is not liberal. The response to Grant is proof of that. The only reason the CM is allowing Grant to print anything is because they want the public to buy the idea they are not biased. If their circulation was great and they were financially okay, they would not have to prove they were unbiased.

Bruce_Currie wrote:

08/08/2013

It must be tough. While it's good to read and think critically, asking questions all the while, at some point ("They constantly lie...they do not present facts...they are all biased" begins to morph into paranoia. When you can't tell the difference between the NYTimes and Breitbart...Houston, we have a problem.

GWTW wrote:

08/06/2013

Why wont the democrats agree to a debate on Fox News? I find that curiouser, CNN.